Supreme Court: Police May Not Detain Armed Hoosiers to Check for Handgun License

[Kirk Freeman]

I wonder if the US Attorney is tracking this case? Since Pinner is not a "Law abiding citizen", once the case is done they should file federal charges

I'll take vindictive prosecution for $500, Alex.

Well, maybe they'd pull some cheap vindictive crap like that in Tippecanoe County, but not in USSDIN.

 

[Fargo]

I wonder if the US Attorney is tracking this case? Since Pinner is not a "Law abiding citizen", once the case is done they should file federal charges

Using what evidence? Pinner largely turned up on an interpretation of state law as to whether or not in the IN handgun license scheme allowed compliance check stops. State court precedent binds in federal court on questions of state law.

Plus, Pinner appears to be the sort of minnow the Feds have no interest in on the day-to-day basis. It's not like he committed some sort of high-profile crime or is a famous person. Couple that with a big search and seizure issue and I would be really surprised if the feds had the slightest interest.

 

[Gabriel]

You are bringing up a valid point. Like it or not, the "suspicious man with a gun" calls do come in. Just got one recently which was described as suspicious guy at Walmart with a gun. I literally asked dispatch over the radio if there was anything suspicious about him other than the fact he had a gun. After a brief silence he answered no.. lol

However, I responded anyway (the guy was gone by the time I got there) because the one time I don't go will be the time something bad happens then I'm all over the news as the officer who didn't respond to a legitimate complaint... Like it or not as a police officer you are required to answer the calls given by dispatch.

Now having said that, if the guy was there I would have probably chatted it up with him for a few minutes and left. If he refused to talk to me I would let him walk away and not have my feelings hurt. I don't think you'll get much push back from good cops on this ruling, but it is worth noting that they are somewhat obligated to at least answer "suspicious" calls given by the public.

Maybe this needs to be clarified more at the dispatch level.

Quite true. Here, dispatch is required to send an officer to every call they get regardless of how idiotic it sounds over the phone (this is due to a murder that happened years ago where a dispatcher didn't send someone to a call and the caller was later murdered, it's now CYA for them). So we get sent to everything, including calls for suspicious people with guns. It's not like we can decide to just not go, and who is going to volunteer to be the officer that doesn't go when it turns out there is actually a problem. 75% of the time there is miscommunication between the caller and dispatch where the call wasn't quite what it was purported to be. This can go both was and be either worse than it what was given in the dispatch, or it could end up being a complete non-issue. Nobody wants to be the officer that doesn't go investigate.

 

[myhightechsec]

Quite true. Here, dispatch is required to send an officer to every call they get regardless of how idiotic it sounds over the phone (this is due to a murder that happened years ago where a dispatcher didn't send someone to a call and the caller was later murdered, it's now CYA for them). So we get sent to everything, including calls for suspicious people with guns. It's not like we can decide to just not go, and who is going to volunteer to be the officer that doesn't go when it turns out there is actually a problem. 75% of the time there is miscommunication between the caller and dispatch where the call wasn't quite what it was purported to be. This can go both was and be either worse than it what was given in the dispatch, or it could end up being a complete non-issue. Nobody wants to be the officer that doesn't go investigate.

I was told by a police friend that the attitude was they would much rather investigate a "something" that was really a "nothing" than to blow off a "nothing" that was really a "something."

 

[ArevaloSocom]

Good

 

[archy]

Someone earlier said, they may have gone this way in order to avoid another debacle like Barnes and they may be correct.

Or it could be the choice between an IN police officer being on the end of Level 6 felony Official misconduct charges for disregarding the ruling, versus facing the penalty under Title 18 # 241/242 for a federal civil rights violation. I now call Wyoming my home, where we've had Constitutional Carry since 2013, carry open or concealed as you prefer or weather dictates, no more license required than for buying a newspaper or reading a bible, and with fewer fatal shootings in the state per year than Chicago sees in some weekends. And the accidental discharges are down with the lessened need for removing and replacing carried handguns depending on the laws of localities.

 

[gregr]

I know this is from 3 years ago
https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/general-firearms-discussion/330485-pulled-over.html

But I've heard of dozens of stories from people.
Some had the guns unloaded.
Some had the guns disassembled.

I shared a story in which a guy, and his training officer, pulled 2 fellows over who had just been at the 1500. They ended up, even though both men had valid carry permits, disassembling 5 handguns, including their carry weapons, before they uncuffed them and let them go. If all I had done was sue, the nazi jerks would have gotten off easy.

 

[gregr]

If they can presume someone is dangerous even when NOT armed, ("You're not under arrest, but I'm going to put these handcuffs on you for your safety and mine."), it's not much of a stretch to presume that someone that IS armed is dangerous.

If I`m not under arrest, I`m not going to be cuffed. If I`m legally carrying, I`m not going to be disarmed. Period.

 

[actaeon277]

If I`m not under arrest, I`m not going to be cuffed. If I`m legally carrying, I`m not going to be disarmed. Period.

I think you'd be best arguing in court.
Instead of either being in jail or dead.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

Decision from the 8th circuit agrees.

https://www.ammoland.com/2017/05/ei...ail&utm_term=0_6f6fac3eaa-de352acdf7-20594033

 

[Endrin2113]

Indiana, sometimes I love you.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

If I`m not under arrest, I`m not going to be cuffed. If I`m legally carrying, I`m not going to be disarmed. Period.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I just let it go when I saw it.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

I just let it go when I saw it.

As I should have.

 

[jbombelli]

Go ahead. Disarm me. It won't do any good when I pull out the KILL FACE.

Having a good kill face is like walking around with a loaded gun in your pocket. Only its not a gun.

 

[T.Lex]

Go ahead. Disarm me. It won't do any good when I pull out the KILL FACE.

Having a good kill face is like walking around with a loaded gun in your pocket. Only its not a gun.

Your face is in your pocket?

Do you keep it in a jar by the door?

 

[jbombelli]

Your face is in your pocket?

Do you keep it in a jar by the door?

Kill faces are very serious business. They're nothing to joke about.

 

[bobzilla]

hey, at least it's his face and not some other body part that is later found for sale on a street vendor's blanket and as to buy it back.

 

[T.Lex]

Kill faces are very serious business. They're nothing to joke about.

Ok Major Kovalyov.

 

[jbombelli]

Ok Major Kovalyov.

I learned it from Master Ken.

[video=youtube_share;k-5edQQXMfQ]http://youtu.be/k-5edQQXMfQ[/video]